May a judge sign a scouting fundraiser letter to a city that regularly litigates before the judge?

Plain-English summary

A circuit judge chaired a local scouting district. He proposed signing a letter, with his judicial title, asking a city housing official to fund camp places for public housing youth. The city itself was a party in about two dozen proceedings annually before his court.

The Commission applied Canon 5B and its restriction on using judicial prestige in fundraising. It said the proposed letter both used the judge's official title and sought money from an entity that regularly appeared before him. The Canons did not permit him to sign it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Was using the judicial title part of the problem?

A: Yes. The proposed letter identified him by official title in a request for city funding.

Q: Did the recipient personally have a current case before the judge?

A: No. The opinion noted no current case involving the housing official, but the city regularly litigated in the judge's court.

Background and rules framework

Alabama Canon 5B permits civic activity subject to limits on impartiality and judicial duties. Canon 5B(2) discourages fundraising and use of office prestige; the opinion also relied on Canon 2's commentary about requests to likely litigants.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Alabama Canons 5B and 5B(2), commentary to Canon 2, and Advisory Opinions 84-216, 86-269, 96-596, 00-747, and 00-753.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 84-216: Judge Title on Scholarship Solicitation

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 01-773

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: FEBRUARY 14, 2001 ADVISORY OPINION 01-773
WRITINGALETTERSOLICITINGFUNDS
FOR A CIVIC OR CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATION
ISSUES
May a circuit judge who regularly has cases
before him to which a city is a party sign a
proposed letter soliciting city funding for a
scouting program? Answer: No.
FACTS
A circuit judge is the district chairman of his
county’s chapter of the Boy Scouts of
America. The Boy Scout Area Council has
recently formed a committee to offer scouting
to youth at risk. The council is proposing to
operate a five-day summer camp program for
a number of boys, with the goal of providing
a meaningful outdoor experience, interaction
with caringadults, and development ofasense
of independence and self-worth. At the
conclusion of the camp program, participants
are to be placed with developing scout troops
in their neighborhood. Through this annual
camp, the Area Council plans to grow a viable
scouting program in selected neighborhoods.
A letter has been drafted to the individual who
is the head of the public housing program in a
city in the county, requesting that the city
make a commitment to fund a certain number
of camperships for the city’s public housing
community. The letter is on Boy Scout Area
Council stationery. The judge proposes to
sign the letter as the county scouting
chairman, using his judicial title before his
name. The letter is to be co-signed by the Boy
Scout senior district executive.
The person to whom the letter is addressed has
some decisional authority with respect to
expenditure of city moneys for the city public
housingprogram. Neitherthepersonto whom
the letter would be sent nor the public housing
program regularly engages in litigation before
the judge, and neither has a case presently
before him. The housing program does
occasionally bring eviction actions in the
district court, but such cases are not usually
appealed to the circuit court. However,
criminalcases brought bythecityareappealed
to the judge’s court from municipal court. On
an annual basis, the city is a party to
approximately two dozen such proceedings in
the judge’s court.
DISCUSSION
This matter is governed primarily by Canon
5B of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Canon 5B states that a judge may participate
in civic and charitable activities “that do not
reflect adversely upon his impartiality or
interfere with the performance of his judicial
duties,” and that a judge may serve as an
officer,director,trustee,ornonlegal advisorof
a religious, charitable, or other civic
organization subject to certain limitations,
including the following:
(1) A judge should not serve if it is
likely that the organization or
institution will be engaged in
proceedings that would ordinarily
come before him or will be regularly
engaged in adversary proceedings in
any court.
(2) It is desirable that a judge not
solicit funds for any educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization or institution, or use or
permit the use of the prestige of his
office for that purpose, but he may be
listed as an officer, director, or trustee
of such an organization or institution.
ADVISORY OPINION 01-773
PAGE 2
The Commission has previously addressed
participation in fund raising as follows:
. . . Canon 5B(2) strongly discourages
but does not absolutely prohibit
participation in fund raising for civic
andcharitableorganizations. See,e.g.,
Advisory Opinions 83-174 and 96-
596.
Participation in fund raising presents a danger
that the prestige of the judicial office will be
used for the solicitation of funds. Advisory
Opinions 81-101 and 96-596. It also involves
a danger that the person solicited will feel
obligated to respond favorably if the judge is
in a position of influence or control.
Commentary to the Model Code of Judicial
Conduct, Canon 4C(3)(b) (1990). A judge
who participates in fund raising for a civic or
charitable organization must be ever mindful
of the provisions of Canons 1 and 2, and must
limit such participation so that he or she does
not lend the prestige of his or her judicial
office to the event or otherwise violate either
the letter or the spirit of Canons 1 and 2.
Advisory Opinions 83-174, 83-179, 85-242,
and 96-596.
Advisory Opinions 00-747 and 00-753.
In AdvisoryOpinion 00-753, the Commission
concluded that a judge may not use his
judicial position or title in fund-raising
activities. See also, Advisory Opinions 84-
216 (a judge should not permit his name to be
listed along with the title “Judge” on
stationeryofan educational foundation that he
knows will be used for the purpose of
soliciting funds because to do so would
“permit the use of the prestige of his office for
the purpose of soliciting funds”); and
Advisory Opinion 96-596 (advising a judge
that his name should not be listed as a judge
on an invitation to a fund-raising dinner that
would be held in the judge’s home).
The Commission also notes that the
Commentary to Canon 2, in addressing
lending the prestige of judicial office to
advance the private interests of others, states
that a judge should not write a letter of
recommendation to a recipient who is either
currently engaged in litigation before the
judge or likely to be engaged in proceedings
that would ordinarily come before the judge’s
court. Similar to the concern in fund raising,
this prohibition addresses the danger that the
recipient might feel coerced to respond
favorably. Advisory Opinion 86-269.
The proposed letter submittedbythe inquiring
judge not only uses the judge’s official title, it
also seeks funds from an entity that is
regularly engaged in proceedings that
ordinarily come before the judge. It is the
opinion of the Commission that the canons do
not permit a circuit judge to sign a proposed
letter soliciting funds from a city when he
regularly has cases before him to which the
city is a party.
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinions 84-216, 86-269,
96-596, 00-747, and 00-753.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
5B and 5B(2).
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics,
Commentary to Canon 2.
ADVISORY OPINION 01-773
PAGE 3
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, 800 South McDonough
Street, Suite 201, Montgomery, Alabama
36104; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 240-
3327; E-mail: [email protected].